Arizonans are now allowed to carry concealed weapons into bars. Gov. Jan Brewer signed the law on Monday to guarantee the right to be fully loaded in bars.
The law would still bar drinking while carrying a weapon and would allow restaurants and bars to prohibit the practice if they properly post warnings. Some may not be content with just being armed without their flaming shot or Schnapps shooter. Forty states have such laws.
Bar owners are not thrilled. Mike Nelson, owners of Pomeroy’s bar in Phoenix, said “This might be one of the stupidest things that I have heard of.”
Gun owners recently celebrated the right to bear arms in churches and work places in Texas and Arkansas (here).
For the story, click here.
I am an Arizona resident and I am appalled, ashamed and disgusted by this cowboy mentality. The GOP in AZ waited until our former governor, Janet Napolitano, was tapped for President Obama’s cabinet and the Republican Lt. Gov. Jan Brewer, to take charge and then they unleashed this insanity. What an incredibly stupid and leathal combination: small brained gun-toters (I guess that’s redundant) plus liquor.
Attention fellow gun owners: Your right to bear arms ends as soon as you step onto another person’s property.
I store my 9mm (unloaded of course) next to the liquor cabinet in order to de-sensitize it to the effects of alcohol.
I remember when I first got the little fella. -Cough syrup would cause it to go off. Today, I can sit it right there on top of a six pack… and nothing! It just sleeps.
There’s alot of stores around here advertising liquor, lotto and fireworks. I always felt something was missing from the list and AZ just completed it for me.
I live in Texas, where our brain-dead legislature passed the law allowing guns in churches shortly after the nut case in Alabama burst into a church and shot as many “libruls” as he could and shortly before the maniac in Kansas killed Dr. Tiller in his church. Last weekend there was a gun show in town. The show was advertised on television all week, with a voiceover saying, “Buy your guns now before laws are passed limiting your purchases.” Fearmongering at its finest.
The framers of the constitution did no favors for this country when they included the second amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Queen,
Was that the March 10th shooting you are refering to?
Queen,
I think it’s important to remember that for a large part of this country’s history hunting played a key role in feeding large portions of the population.
Gyges,
The 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with hunting. It was about the ability to protect one’s own property, the citizen’s role in defending their own state and country, and last, but not least, the ability to overthrow our own government should the need arise.
As usual, those terrified of inanimate objects failed to read the important parts of the story.
1) The bar owners don’t have to let concealed carriers in. They can post signs barring entrance, which is currently the law in many states (here in Ohio for instance). Since carriers are the ones that tend to follow the law, they won’t carry in the bars that post signs. No harm done.
2) This is already the law in the majority of the country. The nation has not been swept by drunken massacres. In most states, the carrier is not allowed to drink, and again, they tend to be the guys that have had their backgrounds checked, have no criminal record, etc. They aren’t the ones you need to be worrying about. If the guns/bars combination was so devastating, you’d have heard about it by now. This is nothing new.
as a gun owning right winger I believe guns and alcohol do not mix. It is probably a bad idea to have guns in proximity to drunks. I personally would not go into a bar where I knew people could carry. I hope the bar owners post many prominent signs.
With that being said guns are inanimate objects and by themselves cause no harm, it is the human actor that initiates and causes violence. The eradication of guns will not eliminate humans killing other humans, we will just resort to knives and clubs and rocks. Personally a quick shot to the head is preferable to being bludgeoned to death by a baseball bat. Life is full of risks that cannot or will not be mitigated by legislation, why pick on guns?
A well armed populace is a limitation on state tyranny. I like the Benjamin Franklin quote: “Democracy is a lamb and 2 wolves voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.”
as a liberal democrat I believe that guns and people do not mix as guns have this tendency to be discharged into other humans, thusly interrupting their lives.
as for the rest of it…. lets all just raise our glasses high and toast to the Darwin Awards. And be carful where you choose to drink. I imagine we will be hearing stories about stupid drunks killing other stupid drunks because of nonsense over what they play on the jukebox or something equally dumb.
IS? This one’s just for you: guns are inanimate objects but put one into the hands of a human actor, perhaps onej ust like yourself and see what happens next..maybe after one beer, maybe after 5 beers.
chances are we wont see much killing going on in liberal bars.
gwlawschoolmom,
“chances are we wont see much killing going on in liberal bars.”
Do they have liberal and conservative bars in your neck of the woods?
GWLSM:
“chances are we wont see much killing going on in liberal bars.”
I dont think we see much killing in conservative bars either.
I dont handle firearms after drinking bad juju. That was why I disagreed with Arizona.
GWLawSchoolMom-
I’ll try again. Most states that allow concealed carry (and that’s a huge majority of the U.S.), have allowed carry in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol for years. Most of those don’t allow the carrier to drink.
In any measurable sense, it has not been a problem.
People with CCW permits don’t shoot people because of a spilled drink or lost game of pool. That’s because they aren’t criminals, they aren’t nuts, and again with rare exceptions, *they aren’t drinking*.
In no state where this has been policy have the voters said, “Oh man, what were we thinking, look at all the shootings we’ve had in Applebees,” and reversed the law. Because it’s not a problem.
Well at least the only ones that are drunk will not just be the ones carrying guns. Oh my gosh, drunk cops too.
Question, how would these restaurants and bars see that someone ordering a drink is carrying a CONCEALED weapon?
Jericho,
Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me (or both)?–that’s how to tell!!!
I would just like to see the playing field leveled here.
To wit:
Any state that allows guns to be carried in a bar, restaurant, church, school or other meeting place, must also allow guns to be carried into any state building where legislation takes place.
Let’s have the lawmakers live with the consequences of their legislation.
Jim,
I understand that. I even know that the right to bear arms started as a duty to bear arms up until the English Bill of Rights, which declared “that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”
My point was that guns have more uses than what gets discussed, and saying that the Second Amendment didn’t do anyone any favors is an over simplification that ignores a large part of history.
I have expressed support for the Second amendment all along here even though I’m neither a gun owner, nor a hunter. However, recently while waiting to be seen in a doctor’s office I read through three copies of the American Rifle Association’s house magazine. There are some seriously crazy people residing there, interspersed with the ads for speed-draw holsters. I still support the Second Amendment, but many of those who do at least as expressed by the magazine, seem a tad crazy in their enthusiasms.
Mike Spindell:
a good many people like to shoot for recreation-trap; skeet; sporting clays; cowboy; long range target; etc.
The quick draw holster is probably used in shooting competitions. You must have a hobby you are passionate about, they are no different. My wife is a knitter and has recently gotten into spinning wool into yarn. If you want to meet some real crazies go to a knitting shop.
IS,
Good points.
Many of those enthusiasts are LEOs. (the shooters..not the knitters)
Jim asks: Do they have liberal and conservative bars in your neck of the woods?
absolutely.
why wouldn’t they?
IS writes: I dont think we see much killing in conservative bars either.
I dont handle firearms after drinking bad juju. That was why I disagreed with Arizona.
me: sez you. lets see how many likkered-up gun owners decide to go rambo after a few beers. time will tell.
while we are waiting, what us bad juju? is that some redneck cocktail I haven’t heard of? why would anyone drink it?
JW writes: ‘ll try again. Most states that allow concealed carry (and that’s a huge majority of the U.S.), have allowed carry in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol for years. Most of those don’t allow the carrier to drink.
me: okay then. so, let me ask you this…. do bars ask to see your concealed weapon before they serve you? the gun is concealed. the bartender can’t see it. asking if the customer has a weapon and asking to see it may be an illegal search.
JW: In any measurable sense, it has not been a problem.
really.
Jw: People with CCW permits don’t shoot people because of a spilled drink or lost game of pool. That’s because they aren’t criminals, they aren’t nuts, and again with rare exceptions, *they aren’t drinking*.
me: what do they kill people over? isn’t the point of owning, say, a pistol, to kill someone? no one hunts deer with a handgun.
gun owners are more attached to their weapons than little kids are attached to their puppies. why? what exactly does a gun do for you? make you feel more of a man? more in love with humanity? more tolerant? better looking? taller? better in bed?
I don’t get it.
IS writes: My wife is a knitter and has recently gotten into spinning wool into yarn. If you want to meet some real crazies go to a knitting shop.
me: hold on there pardner. i happen to be one of those crazies. I spin and dye my own yarn and knit my own designs. I go to yarn shops in very town I visit and have gone to conventions. I’ve used every luxury fiber you can imagine and have even used the undercoat from my dogs to make the softest hardiest socks for my husband for his fly fishing waders. even if my husband would think of me that way, he would not dare say it out loud or share it on a blog. not if he doesn’t want to eat dog food for dinner. anyway your wife needs your support with her new addiction and
she knows where you keep your guns, so my advice, is this: when she needs new yarn or more fiber to spin, you just say “yes, honey, can I drive you to the yarn store”
besides. once she gets good at it,you will be first in line for amazing knitwear.
GLSM,
Your bias is showing. I agree that booze and guns don’t mix (as does IS and just about ever gun owner I know). Your characterization of gun owners as drunk hicks is insulting and just plain wrong. Let’s look at the gun owners in my immediate social circle…
A College professor, 3 musicians, 2 general contractors, 2 students, a small business man (who is the single most liberal person I know), someone who does environmental impact studies for the state gov’t, an architect, 3 farmers, and a chiropractor. Of those, 4 have masters or doctorates, 3 have or are working on their bachelors, (possibly more, I don’t know the level of education of every one involved).
Yeah I know that’s all anecdotal, and you may or not believe me about it.
Let’s not be lazy in our thinking. You think that allowing concealed guns in bars is going to lead to more violence, fine. You could try and prove it, as has been pointed out there are plenty of places that have this law, go get statistics. What doesn’t do anyone a bit of good is dismissing those that disagree with you as some group that’s some how lesser than you. (By the way, I’ve actually given this general speech to people arguing the other side as well).
Your flippant and dismissive attitude becomes you as little as it became Domino.
To answer your question: My gun feeds me and my family, and provides me with an enjoyable hobby (target shooting) that helps me stay relaxed and is a valuable exercise in maintaining focus, fine motor skills, and visualization.
gwlawschoolmom,
I was not aware of any place in this country that had liberal and conservative bars. I’ve live all over this country and have never seen such a beast. Do they have signs out front, or do the patrons wear colors?
From your comments, I think it would be reasonable to assume that you haven’t spent much time around guns, or gun owners.
Law abiding gun owners follow the laws. If the law says you don’t bring a gun into a bar…they don’t. If the law says you can bring your gun in, but not if you’re going to consume alcohol; they don’t bring their gun in. –Do you really think a law that says you can’t bring your gun into a bar, if you’re going to consume alcohol, is going to stop those that would ignore the law anyway? -I don’t…We have a name for those people -scofflaws.
JW said; “In any measurable sense, it has not been a problem.”
gwlawschoolmom responded ”really”
Yes. –Really. –If people bringing their guns into a bar, and illegally consuming alcohol, is a problem; please provide support for your claim.
JW said; “People with CCW permits don’t shoot people because of a spilled drink or lost game of pool. That’s because they aren’t criminals, they aren’t nuts, and again with rare exceptions, *they aren’t drinking*.”
Gwlawschoolmom responded; “what do they kill people over? isn’t the point of owning, say, a pistol, to kill someone? no one hunts deer with a handgun.”
How many people with CCW permits have shot someone? The point is not to kill someone. The point is to have the opportunity to defend yourself (or more likely, others) from someone who would like to kill someone. –Further, when I go deer hunting, I always bring my pistol. The rifle won’t do you much good when you’re on top of the deer and find that it still has some life in it. (an injured deer will rip you to shreds with their front hoofs.)
” gun owners are more attached to their weapons than little kids are attached to their puppies. why? what exactly does a gun do for you? make you feel more of a man? more in love with humanity? more tolerant? better looking? taller? better in bed?”
Your prejudice is showing. Are you the same person that said you would move your family out of the country if the draft was instituted? –If you won’t defend your neighborhood, your city, your state, or even your country (because “your people aren’t good at that”) be aware that others will have to do it for you. –Those “taller, better looking, better in bed” gun owners will defend you, should the need arise. You won’t be happy that they even exist..until you need them.
Jim,
What does the draft have to do with Gun ownership?
Gyges,
It has to do with defense. The purpose of a CCW is defense.
Jim,
I think I see what you’re getting at, and I’d say your rhetoric falls flat on it’s face in that last paragraph (although I agree with the rest, I’d caution that in some states finishing the deer with a pistol isn’t legal).
There is no correlation between the right to defend oneself and a forced servitude to the U.S. Gov’t. I would even go so far as to say that the Second Amendment is in place to help the individual protect themselves against Government actions like the draft.
GWLSM: okay then. so, let me ask you this…. do bars ask to see your concealed weapon before they serve you? the gun is concealed. the bartender can’t see it. asking if the customer has a weapon and asking to see it may be an illegal search.
You’re not thinking this through. They don’t ask to see *if* you have a weapon as things stand now. If you were a criminal, you could carry in an Arizona bar when it was illegal because you can carry anywhere; you’re a criminal. Putting the sign up will put things back to where they were before. Criminals will continue carrying as much as they were before, permit holders, the ones who commit far less crime than non-permit holders, will not.
JW: In any measurable sense, it has not been a problem.
GWLSM: really.
Yes, really. Both Florida and Texas have published data on crime rates among concealed carriers, and dozens of states, including those two, allow drinking in establishments that serve alcohol. Where are the news reports of nightly drunken shooting sprees?
GWLSM: what do they kill people over? isn’t the point of owning, say, a pistol, to kill someone? no one hunts deer with a handgun.
Concealed carriers, on the occasions that they have to kill someone, virtually always do it because they fear for their life or the life of someone else.
Also, I’m not even a hunter and I knew that people do all sorts of hunting with handguns. I wasn’t sure about deer, so I Googled “deer hunting with a pistol” and got about a bazillion hits, so you were wrong there too.
GWLSM: gun owners are more attached to their weapons than little kids are attached to their puppies. why? what exactly does a gun do for you? make you feel more of a man? more in love with humanity? more tolerant? better looking? taller? better in bed?
I have no sentimental attachment to mine, though I recognize some do. But are you really so obtuse as to wonder what they do for us? What does your seat belt (potentially) do for you? What do your smoke detectors and fire extinguishers (potentially) do for you? My gun might save my life. Hopefully it will never have to. In the meantime, I get to take it to the range and have fun shooting targets.
Gyges,
I don’t think I would deer hunt without a pistol. I wasn’t aware of any state that had a law against “finishing off” a deer that had already been shot legally. -Even if the initial shot was with a bow.
“There is no correlation between the right to defend oneself and a forced servitude to the U.S. Gov’t. I would even go so far as to say that the Second Amendment is in place to help the individual protect themselves against Government actions like the draft.”
I agree. There is no correlation between the right to defend oneself and forced servitude. However, I do think there is a correlation between the Second Amendment and the ability to defend against one’s government. Perhaps Federalist #28 will provide support for my contention.
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state…The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo.”
JW,
O.k. your turn. If concealed weapons make a society safer, prove it. (Anecdotes and hypotheticals don’t count as proof). I would ask that you avoid the studies on DGU (Defensive Gun Use), there’s no clear consensus and the studies most cited by both sides of the issue are flawed. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SmithT1.htm
I’d suggest you look for something that compares violent crime rates in areas with concealed carry permits to analogous areas without.
Jim,
Don’t have my regs handy, but I was thinking specifically of archery and muzzle loading seasons.
O.k. so then you admit what you said to GLSM about the draft had nothing to do with the conversation?
Gyges,
Yes; It was somewhat unrelated. GLWSM’s attitude toward gun owners, combined with her previous statements that she would leave the country if the draft was initiated (because her people just aren’t good at that) got to me.
Are “my people” better suited to give their lives for this country than “her people”?
Our military, like those who chose to carry concealed, are intended to be defensive weapons. A concealed weapon is rarely used to defend oneself. That puts the carrier in harms way for the protection of others. It ticks me off when one, whose people aren’t good at protecting others, looks down upon those who will.
Gyges writes: Your bias is showing. I agree that booze and guns don’t mix (as does IS and just about ever gun owner I know). Your characterization of gun owners as drunk hicks is insulting and just plain wrong. Let’s look at the gun owners in my immediate social circle…
whoa. steady there. of course my bias is showing. I meant it to show. This isn’t something to be embarrassed about… it isn’t my slip showing. I don’t get why anyone needs a gun. I just don’t. On my side of the argument is the huge number of gun-related violence that could and should be avoided if it were not so easy for ordinary people to have guns. it isn’t a sign of advanced society or greatness that causes gun-related violence, but easy access to guns.
when I see a hand gun, I see a future dead person. I see a corpse attached to it. thats what guns are for. to kill and maim and threaten. yeah I know people like to shoot targets and clay thingies and animals. and if they did not do that, they;d find something else equally interesting and compelling to do. just like people do in lots of other countries that we consider enlightened where people don’t own guns and don’t miss them.
I believe that you and many others who are educated and responsible may be gun owners. the problem isn’t that some are responsible the problem is that many are not. that loaded guns are kept in drawers next to beds and children find them and discharge them and kill each other. and that guns obtained easily and illegally are used by kids in schools and disgruntled employees. and that many of these weapons are semi-automatic and automatic. can we at least agree that the average citizen does not need a grenade-launcher?
I have a ladder in my garage that has about 20 different warning labels. Do guns have them? how about bullets?
You: Let’s not be lazy in our thinking. You think that allowing concealed guns in bars is going to lead to more violence, fine. You could try and prove it, as has been pointed out there are plenty of places that have this law, go get statistics. What doesn’t do anyone a bit of good is dismissing those that disagree with you as some group that’s some how lesser than you. (By the way, I’ve actually given this general speech to people arguing the other side as well).
me: This will prove itself. I don’t have to go out of my way to prove anything. What I do know is that for every instance where a gun is used in a senseless crime there are people just like you and I who can’t wrap out heads around it.
It’s that the math is too easy. more guns does equal more gun violence. at least we agree that you can’t carry a gun into a school or a courthouse or on an airplane but if it is legal to carry in church or a bar why isn’t is legal to carry in a courthouse or school …and btw, just because these are gun-free zones does not mean they are gun-free.
You: Your flippant and dismissive attitude becomes you as little as it became Domino.
me: okay. so you don’t like my tone. sometimes that is going to happen. one thing you can count on is this: I won’t get cheesed-off and take a gun and shoot someone because they are critical of my writing style. we all get to have our opinions about stuff like that. but if you want to put me in the same basket as Domino, fine.
Its hot today. really really hot. and that makes me less charitable and sometimes my stab at humor misses. better to miss the joke than the target, eh?
you: To answer your question: My gun feeds me and my family, and provides me with an enjoyable hobby (target shooting) that helps me stay relaxed and is a valuable exercise in maintaining focus, fine motor skills, and visualization.
me: ok then. if you ate something that you killed everyday and had to to survive, it would be another topic. tell me that you don’t have a grocery store with fresh T-bones wrapped in plastic and I’ll lay off.
Jim Byrne writes: From your comments, I think it would be reasonable to assume that you haven’t spent much time around guns, or gun owners.
I am a great shot. I used to have a 22. I gave it up after Bobby Kennedy was assassinated. I just did not see any reason to fire a gun again. I’ve lived in more than a few places where average people had guns and hunted and did target stuff. I know people who keep guns in their homes. There isn’t anything wrong with the people — its the guns that I don’t care for.
You: Your prejudice is showing. Are you the same person that said you would move your family out of the country if the draft was instituted? –If you won’t defend your neighborhood, your city, your state, or even your country (because “your people aren’t good at that”) be aware that others will have to do it for you. –Those “taller, better looking, better in bed” gun owners will defend you, should the need arise. You won’t be happy that they even exist..until you need them.
me: yes my bias is showing. and I am the same person who wrote that I would move my family out of the country if the draft is reinstated. first you have to believe that a war is worth something to you and I don’t believe that the war we are fighting now has any value to me. I believe that this was was manufactured and is criminal. and my kids are not soldiers. I did not raise them to put on uniforms and go into the desert or the jungle or to be electrocuted from faulty wiring in barracks showers. I never believed in war. I still don’t.
I don’t have to send my kids to be fire fighters or police officers either and this isn’t because I don’t think that their work isn’t valuable. it’s just inconsistent with my kids and their temperament. maybe you see a moral imperative to sending your kids off to die. I don’t.
GLSM,
So to sum it up, you don’t need to research what you’re saying because you KNOW you’re right? If you want to have a rational discussion on a topic, it’s best to base your reasoning on evidence not faith. If you want to give a great sermon, well then faith is the way to go. Personally I’ve been preached to enough in my life, so you’ll forgive me if I walk out of this big tent revival.
Not every gun owner wants a grenade launcher, and not every gun control advocate wants guns banned. We’ll be much closer to finding a happy middle ground when both sides realize that.
“It ticks me off when one, whose people aren’t good at protecting others, looks down upon those who will.”
Jim Byrne,
This is annoying and I’ll tell you why. While you already know that I agree with you on the 2nd Amendment , you also know I don’t have a gun. This is not because I’m not able to shoot handguns or rifles and truth be told I’m a better than average shot. I don’t have a gun around the house, there are no young children, because for it to be effective it would have to be loaded and handy, like in my night table. There are times either my wife or I are up during the night and awake the other coming into the bedroom or bed. Waking up out of a sleep at 3:00am leaves me groggy and my home is dark, I don’t like the possibilities entailed. This is not to say that there are no defensive measures prepared, because there are, I’m a wise old bird who spent many years walking alone on the meanest streets in NYC, day and night. Part of what’s kept me from danger is that I’ve devised scenarios for dealing with all manner of possible attack including the possibility of home invasion.
Now where your point gets annoying to me is your assumption that only those carrying handguns, aren’t good at protecting others. Well Jim I’m damned good at protecting others and have actually saved lives in the process. I’m not a hero, but I think you might see I’ve got a strong sense of duty to my fellow humans. Sometimes people carrying guns get too relaxed in their environments because of their assumed protection. I prefer to be alert to my environment at all times, whereas some with firepower may tend to relax their guard. Now you being ex-military may understand that failure to be alert at any time is where the real danger comes from. Many, who carry without your skill set or my street smarts can just as easily fall victim even if they are packing some heavy artillery.
It’s interesting that the presumed weapons of assasins are low caliber.
Fortunately, the owners of most taverns and bordellos probihit firearms on the premises.
Gyges: O.k. your turn. If concealed weapons make a society safer, prove it.
Where did I say that? Aside from that, 41 states are now shall issue or effectively shall issue. I would have no difficulty cherry picking low crime CC states and high crime no CC states.
Gyges: (Anecdotes and hypotheticals don’t count as proof). I would ask that you avoid the studies on DGU (Defensive Gun Use),
“Judge, my client is innocent of these charges and I will prove it in court. Bur first of all, I would ask that the prosecution avoid using evidence…”
So I can’t even use the lowest estimate, which is in the hundreds of thousands?
Gyges: there’s no clear consensus
I agree there.
Gyges: I’d suggest you look for something that compares violent crime rates in areas with concealed carry permits to analogous areas without.
So I have to provide evidence for a claim I didn’t make, and in so doing, I can’t used peer reviewed research from the relevant fields. Sounds reasonable to me!
GWLSM:
“me: sez you. lets see how many likkered-up gun owners decide to go rambo after a few beers. time will tell.
while we are waiting, what us bad juju? is that some redneck cocktail I haven’t heard of? why would anyone drink it?”
First of all from the studies I have seen, concealed carry and just plain carry typically leads to lower crime rates. There is plenty of info on the web in many different forms. Most firearms accidents happen because people do not respect a weapon, I have been around some people that were very lackadaisical about shooting discipline and I left the area. I did not inquire as to their party affiliation.
As for juju it is a catchall word as in bad juju, probably a derivative of some African word for bad medicine although I don’t really know but have heard it used most of my life. I could be spelling it wrong. So it would mean at least in connection with alcohol some sort of rot gut whiskey or gin or vodka that gives a bad hangover and makes your tongue white.
As far as rednecks and firearms are concerned you are quite naive, firearms have been the toast of kings and heads of state for hundreds of years and to have a nice set of pistols or shotguns made for your body is a real pleasure. Had Obama had any class at all he would have given the Prime Minister a matched set of french dueling pistols or a fine shotgun.
An expensive shotgun or rifle that is hand made can run into the tens of thousands of dollars and are exquisite works of art with the engraving and gold and silver inlay.
I hope this helps widen your horizon.
GWLSM:
“besides. once she gets good at it,you will be first in line for amazing knitwear.”
I am going to buy some sheep for her. Also I am not saying she is crazy but those people are really into knitting and fibres.
I have an order in for a cashmere codpiece.
Mike S.,
I think you misunderstood the intent of my comment. I concur with your reasons to not own or possess a gun. I also know that you, like many others, without a gun, are willing to defend others.
“Now where your point gets annoying to me is your assumption that only those carrying handguns, aren’t good at protecting others.”
I think you intended to say that my assumption is that only “those carrying guns are good at protecting others. -That is not my intent. My intent is to demonstrate that those people, by being willing to use that gun in defense of others, are putting themselves in harms way. -I find that to be honorable.
It’s the insinuation that people who own guns have a desire to kill someone that bothers me. -I, and those I know who do carry, don’t have a desire to harm anyone.
“I’m not a hero, but I think you might see I’ve got a strong sense of duty to my fellow humans.”
I definately do see that, and appreciate that very much. Most of us, even though we may have different points of view, have the same sense of duty.
The best thing to do with any self-defense weapon is to avoid the need to use it. I completely agree that being too comfortable with your abilities is a mistake too often made.
GWLSM:
“” gun owners are more attached to their weapons than little kids are attached to their puppies. why? what exactly does a gun do for you? make you feel more of a man? more in love with humanity? more tolerant? better looking? taller? better in bed?””
put simply how would you feel if someone wanted you to stop your hobby and took away your fabrics? You can make rope and rope is used to kill people. So therefore we should outlaw rope and confiscate spinning wheels because some people are going to use rope to kill people.
Does that spinning wheel make you better in bed or better looking or taller? Probably not, and it is the same for gun owners.
JW,
I hate it when people make me explain this sort of thing. A claim hidden in comparisons is still a claim. That part where you compare a gun to a seat-belt, and a fire alarm is pretty clearly indicating that you think guns are in the same category as them. The only category I can think of that applies is things that make people safer. So I ask, why should it be in that category?
I was just saving us time by saying why I don’t consider the DGU statistics good evidence. If you find that unreasonable, and can’t figure out other ways of showing that guns make a society safer, then I guess we don’t really have anything else to discuss. I do think that if guns really are a good safety device it should be evident in more than one way.
gyges writes: o to sum it up, you don’t need to research what you’re saying because you KNOW you’re right? If you want to have a rational discussion on a topic, it’s best to base your reasoning on evidence not faith. If you want to give a great sermon, well then faith is the way to go. Personally I’ve been preached to enough in my life, so you’ll forgive me if I walk out of this big tent revival.
Not every gun owner wants a grenade launcher, and not every gun control advocate wants guns banned. We’ll be much closer to finding a happy middle ground when both sides realize that.
me: I just don’t get it. sometimes I have a hard time wrapping my head around stuff that other people just get. I read. I listen to the tv news machine and I know that everyday there is gun related crime. people die in gun related crime. maybe that isnt rational. and maybe I know I’m right because I know I’m right about it for me. I never intended to preach, I just don’t understand why guns are so important.
I don’t think I’d feel safer if I had a gun. I can’t tell you why, I just don’t.
IS,
Juju is from west Africa, it’s a magic item, or the magic effects of the item.
Gyges:
thank you, I know GWLSM thanks you too and so bad juju could be bad whiskey and its magical after effect.
Gyges-
“I hate it when people make me explain this sort of thing. A claim hidden in comparisons is still a claim.”
First you claim that I think CCW makes SOCIETY safer. The evidence for this is currently mixed at best. I think the pro-gun side is overselling this point. An Ohio university, forgive me, I can’t remember which, did a meta study on the subject and came to a conclusion that makes perfect sense to me: concealed carry is basically a wash. It makes sense because of two reasons: 1) There aren’t enough CCs relative to the number of criminals. 2) Media coverage, particularly nationally, of defensive gun uses, is almost non-existent. For that matter, if you listen to people like Dianne Sawyer, it is virtually impossible for any regular citizen to so much as hold a gun without killing themselves, forget self defense.
Gyges-
“That part where you compare a gun to a seat-belt, and a fire alarm is pretty clearly indicating that you think guns are in the same category as them.”
Since I never made the claim that society as a whole is *currently* benefiting from concealed carry (nor is it being harmed), I can only claim a (potential) benefit for those that carry. I suppose I could claim a societal benefit by saying that at least hundreds of thousands of people defend themselves every year, but you don’t recognize those.
“The only category I can think of that applies is things that make people safer. So I ask, why should it be in that category?”
Now you seem back to individual people, but you won’t let me cite the thousands of specific cases that I can cite, or the dozen or so peer reviewed studies on the subject, the most conservative of which put defensive gun uses far above the total number of gun deaths from crime, suicide, and accidents.
“I was just saving us time by saying why I don’t consider the DGU statistics good evidence.”
It’s not uncommon for people to disagree with some or most of the studies in a given area of research. Obviously, the people doing the research disagree, as the numbers they’ve come to are very far apart. What you can’t stand is that even the lowest of them puts the number over the total of criminal gun deaths. So your solution is that they must ALL be wrong.
“If you find that unreasonable, and can’t figure out other ways of showing that guns make a society safer, then I guess we don’t really have anything else to discuss. I do think that if guns really are a good safety device it should be evident in more than one way.”
The two ways that guns can “make society safer”, at least that I can think of, are deterrence and actual use. As I said, I don’t think the evidence is there yet for deterrence. As more people carry, that could change. I think the evidence for defensive gun uses is overwhelming.
Why do police carry guns? Could it be for their safety? Obviously they have utility as a “safety device”.
GWLSM-
“I just don’t get it. sometimes I have a hard time wrapping my head around stuff that other people just get. I read. I listen to the tv news machine and I know that everyday there is gun related crime.”
This is true, and it’s sad. But also every day, people defend themselves with firearms. Those stories are less newsworthy, often because they aren’t even reported because no shots were fired.
“people die in gun related crime. maybe that isnt rational.”
That you would even consider that your opinion *might* not be entirely rational makes you more intellectually honest than most people.
“I don’t think I’d feel safer if I had a gun. I can’t tell you why, I just don’t.”
And that’s ok. I can tell you that there are lots of people who felt the same way but who were exposed to firearms in a safe and comfortable environment and ended up enjoying it.
I’m only half kidding when I say I’m more terrified of hot glue guns than of firearms. My pistol can’t hurt me unless I do lots of really stupid things. On the other hand, I can’t seem to get within five feet of a hot glue gun without getting third degree burns. If Satan existed, he’d be into crafts and he’d have a hot glue gun in a holster.
JW,
I have no control over what you use as evidence or don’t use. What I have control over is what I consider credible evidence. I happen to think that the most commonly cited DGU studies are flawed and therefor by themselves unconvincing. You’re assuming a reason for rejecting them as evidence that just isn’t there.
I’ll tell you why the supposed reason for my rejecting those studies falls flat (I was also trying to avoid having to explain this again, this isn’t the first time I’ve had this discussion): Even if the number of DGUs is higher than the gun related deaths you list (which isn’t exhaustive of gun related deaths) it doesn’t prove that having a gun made anyone safer than they would be not having a gun. It’s like saying that more bicycles helmets were worn in accidents then there were bicycle helmet related deaths.
Now if you have something other then the DGU reports to prove that guns make individuals (and thereby society in general, because individuals make up society) safer, I stand ready to have a discussion. If not, I truly enjoyed talking to you, I always re-evaluate my arguments every time I make them, so it’s nice to be forced to do that occasionally.
As an aside, Police carry guns as a weapon.
“As an aside, Police carry guns as a weapon.”
Police carry guns as a defensive weapon. (or at least that is supposed to be the reason)
Jim,
I’ll accept that, but it still doesn’t make it a “Safety device.”
IS writes: first of all from the studies I have seen, concealed carry and just plain carry typically leads to lower crime rates. There is plenty of info on the web in many different forms. Most firearms accidents happen because people do not respect a weapon, I have been around some people that were very lackadaisical about shooting discipline and I left the area. I did not inquire as to their party affiliation.
me: studies. I have some faith in them, but I tend to put my belief into facts based on real life events. my sister is an interesting woman, not the smartest in her class, even by half. she’s creative and original in many ways and doesn’t have the best taste in men. one evening, her ex broke into her house and with a legally purchased handgun and no background of violent behavior, tied her up and held the gun to her head. he terrorized her for over 10 hours and left, of his own accord around 8:30 in the morning. he knew her kids would be coming home from their father’s house around 9. she had no warning.
I don’t care who has discipline and who does not. I don’t care who has gun education or respect for guns. I just don’t care.
all I can compare this to is the fact that many other countries have strict gun laws and gun ownership and gun violence is really uncommon. why are we content to put up with any gun violence? I just don’t get this.
IS: As far as rednecks and firearms are concerned you are quite naive, firearms have been the toast of kings and heads of state for hundreds of years and to have a nice set of pistols or shotguns made for your body is a real pleasure. Had Obama had any class at all he would have given the Prime Minister a matched set of french dueling pistols or a fine shotgun.
me: yeah the redneck thing was unfortunate on my part. the guy who held a gun to my sister’s head was from Massachusetts. but I don’t think I’m naive. I also don’t care who is given a gun or from whence it came or how valuable it might be. I just don’t like guns.
IS: I hope this helps widen your horizon.
me: I think my horizon is pretty wide. how many of your siblings have been held at gunpoint.?
IS writes: put simply how would you feel if someone wanted you to stop your hobby and took away your fabrics? You can make rope and rope is used to kill people. So therefore we should outlaw rope and confiscate spinning wheels because some people are going to use rope to kill people.
Does that spinning wheel make you better in bed or better looking or taller? Probably not, and it is the same for gun owners.
me: while I’m sure that there must be some record on the number of assaults connected to knitting needles, I’ve generally found knitting and spinning to be pretty safe. Not too many spinning wheel accidents cause death.maybe some wrecked yarn, but no deaths.
I make yarn. it’s rather thin, delicate stuff and I have no interest in making rope. you can buy perfectly good rope at any hardware store. and while someone may use rope in the commission of a violent crime it is generally after a gun has been pulled. I don’t know of any criminals who have walked into someone’s home or business, without a weapon and have been able to convince the homeowner to sit down and allow themselves to be tied up unless there is a gun at their heads. you?
spinning does make me better looking. I’m already very good in bed.
Gyges-
“Now if you have something other then the DGU reports to prove that guns make individuals (and thereby society in general, because individuals make up society) safer, I stand ready to have a discussion.”
Ok, so now that we’ve taken the DGU studies out of the equation, are you actually claiming that not a single person has saved their own life by using a gun? Or are you going to stick with the preposterous notion that because we can’t see into an alternate universe and know what *would* have happened had the victim not defended themselves, that zero lives have been saved?
“As an aside, Police carry guns as a weapon.”
Forgive me, but it’s difficult to believe that you are being sincere when you say things like this. It’s a weapon that is being used to do what? To protect the SAFETY of the LEO and/or the public. When used lawfully, it is because the LEO believes that he or someone else’s life is at risk. I’d call that protecting their safety.
GWLawSchoolMom-
“studies. I have some faith in them, but I tend to put my belief into facts based on real life events.”
This is horrifying and something I would expect from a fundamentalist Christian trying to gut a science curriculum. I’m not telling you that every study is correct, far from it. Each study needs to be judged on its own merit and often they have none. But you can’t generalize onto society based on your tiny corner of the world. It also means that your view can be summarily dismissed if a person had an experience opposite yours. Of course, our experience informs all of our decisions, but this is something different.
GWLawSchoolMom-
“I think my horizon is pretty wide. how many of your siblings have been held at gunpoint.?”
And this is what I mean. My uncle has been held at gunpoint. I had one friend who was shot to death and an acquaintance who was stabbed to death in her apartment. Another relative had an experience remarkably similar to your sister’s, though had it not been for a rescue, he would have killed her. Over the span of my life, my home has been burglarized twice.
I’ve seen all of this and my conclusion is opposite yours. Neither of our personal stories alone should be sufficient for anyone to decide where they are on this issue. It certainly wasn’t for me, because I used to be pro-gun control.
JW,
If you look at my first response to you, I give you a way of starting to establish that the presence of guns makes people less likely to be victims of violent crimes, or alternately that they’re less likely to be harmed by violent crimes. That’s why I suggested it as a starting place.
The universe is full of phenomena that don’t behave like humans expect, some that involve human interactions. Rather than force the data to fit the theory, I force the theory to fit the data. That however involves actually having data. So you make a claim to me, I ask for proof, not explanation. In this case, that people in with guns are statistically more likely to survive (either by avoidance or by a difference in the way the encounter plays out) violent crimes. There should be other ways, but that’s where I’d start.
Words have meanings. A gun is a weapon, it fits the definition perfectly. It’s actually used as an example of Weapon in the two or three online dictionaries that pop up first when you Google “weapon definition” You can use a weapon defensively (although with a gun the defense is limited to offense, it’s not like a club that can be used to block other weapons) but that doesn’t mean they are something other then a weapon. The only reason cops carry a gun is for use “to injure, defeat, or destroy” (Merriam-webster). Therefor, cops carry guns as weapons, the reason they wish “to injure, defeat, etc.” is irrelevant to the guns status as a weapon.
Gyges-
Are you going to stand by the idea that cops don’t use their guns for the safety of themselves and citizens?
My home was broken into a few months ago and without going into details I will say this experience had a profound effect on me. I had a lot of trouble sleeping and felt extremely helpless in my own home. I can tell you that I started sleeping much better once I purchased a firearm, and while i know it is no guarantee that it will keep me safe, the peace of mind is has helped a lot.
JW writes: “studies. I have some faith in them, but I tend to put my belief into facts based on real life events.”
This is horrifying and something I would expect from a fundamentalist Christian trying to gut a science curriculum. I’m not telling you that every study is correct, far from it. Each study needs to be judged on its own merit and often they have none. But you can’t generalize onto society based on your tiny corner of the world. It also means that your view can be summarily dismissed if a person had an experience opposite yours. Of course, our experience informs all of our decisions, but this is something different.
me: I guess you get to be horrified then. but don’t lets pretend that I am a fundamentalist christian or that I have motives consistent with theirs. I do not. studies contain elements of bias simply because biased people author studies.
jw: And this is what I mean. My uncle has been held at gunpoint. I had one friend who was shot to death and an acquaintance who was stabbed to death in her apartment. Another relative had an experience remarkably similar to your sister’s, though had it not been for a rescue, he would have killed her. Over the span of my life, my home has been burglarized twice.
me: I have not been a victim of violent crime. I don’t know if this is because I am lucky or smart or maybe a bit of both. all I know is that we are all informed by our experiences and mine have led me in one direction and yours have led you in another.
JW,
If I said that, I would. Unless you change “citizens” to read “citizens that the cop doesn’t feel presents a sufficient threat to necessitate drawing their gun.” For all practical purposes, nobody aims a gun at somebody for that other person’s safety. People who break the law are as much a citizen after the crime as they were before. Like I said, words have meanings.
That’s not what I said though. I’m not going to repeat myself other than to say: The word weapon has a very specific meaning. (I’ll let you look it up) The ONLY use of a gun is something that is exactly what the word weapon means. Police carry guns for that use, or as a threat to escalate to that use. Motivation does not change a thing in this instance.
Now, unless you’re going to get back to our original discussion, with something other than how unreasonable I am, I’m done.
Gyges-
The dictionary also says that a weapon can be used in defense. Motivation absolutely matters so I suppose we’re done. Inanimate objects are incapable of carrying moral value. The use of the gun is toward a goal. It is that goal that determines the morality of the act. If you can’t see the difference between a gun used to save an innocent person’s life (a WEAPON used for the SAFETY of society) and a gun used to murder someone, wow.
GWLawSchoolMom
“This is horrifying and something I would expect from a fundamentalist Christian trying to gut a science curriculum.”
GWLSM-
“I guess you get to be horrified then. but don’t lets pretend that I am a fundamentalist christian or that I have motives consistent with theirs. I do not. studies contain elements of bias simply because biased people author studies.”
Let me rephrase, because I did not mean to imply that you are a fundamentalist Christian, I meant that that *thought process* is *like* a fundamentalist pushing creationism into a science curriculum. My apologies.
jw writes: Let me rephrase, because I did not mean to imply that you are a fundamentalist Christian, I meant that that *thought process* is *like* a fundamentalist pushing creationism into a science curriculum. My apologies.
me: you wrote that my post was horrifying and in line with fundamentalist efforts to reinstate prayer in public schools or put creationism into public school curricula. either what I wrote is horrifying or it isn’t. I don’t expect you to apologize for your assessment of what I write. I do expect an apology for imagining that you have access to what I think or that you have some clue as to my thought processes. you don’t. all you know about me, of how I think is through the words I write.
I don’t like guns and when you call them safety weapons when they kill enemies or guns when used in criminal activity you are splitting hairs that have nothing to do with the potential for harm that all firearms possess.
so, at the end of the day you get to be horrified and I still get to hate guns. doesn’t make us bad people or extend beyond those specific comments. I have no idea what motivates you or how you think and it would be beyond the pale for me to assume that I do based on a few things you write on a blog.
GWLSM-
“you wrote that my post was horrifying”
No I didn’t. I said your thought process (personal experience over research) was horrifying.
“and in line with fundamentalist efforts to reinstate prayer in public schools”
Never said a word about prayer in schools.
“or put creationism into public school curricula.”
Well now we’re at least on to something I mentioned.
“either what I wrote is horrifying or it isn’t.”
The thought process was, I didn’t say anything else was.
“I don’t expect you to apologize for your assessment of what I write. I do expect an apology for imagining that you have access to what I think or that you have some clue as to my thought processes.”
You won’t get one because I never did that. The only “access to what [you] think” that I have was what *you* told me.
“I don’t like guns and when you call them safety weapons”
I never called them that. I said that a cop carries a gun to protect his own safety or the safety of others. Gyges insisted on calling them weapons as if there is no other word in the English language that can apply. Again, the word and the object itself are morally neutral. A weapon can be used to support genocide and it can be used to stop the worst of tyrants.
“when they kill enemies or guns when used in criminal activity you are splitting hairs that have nothing to do with the potential for harm that all firearms possess.”
If a gun is used in criminal activity, that’s a bad thing. But it was the human who did the bad thing, not the gun. Take the human out of the equation and the gun sits there doing nothing.
“so, at the end of the day you get to be horrified and I still get to hate guns. doesn’t make us bad people”
I’ve seen nothing that makes me think you are a bad person.
“or extend beyond those specific comments. I have no idea what motivates you or how you think and it would be beyond the pale for me to assume that I do based on a few things you write on a blog.”
My motivation? I am very passionate about the idea that all human rights can be rendered irrelevant if we do not have the right to defend ourselves. When I see people panicking over a law like this that is nothing new and experience shows is not going to cause problems, I try correct the misconception.
This Sunday 60 Minutes is running a story called “Gun Rush”. It’s about all the people buying up guns and ammo.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4937729n&tag=cbsnewsSidebarArea.0
Looks like an interesting story.
“This Sunday 60 Minutes is running a story called “Gun Rush”. It’s about all the people buying up guns and ammo.”
Jim,
This story is a repeat which I’ve previously seen. It reinforces my point about the American Rifle Association’s house magazine and the organization in general. I believe that they ill serve the integrity of the Second Amendment and have become spokespeople for radical elements of the Republican Party and the gun industry that supports them financially. There is no impending movement that will rescind Second Amendment Rights for the distant future. Yet the ARA is almost hysterical in their watchfulness and in their support for hardline Republican candidates. It is pathetic because in addition to attracting serious gun owners who believe in their protective value, target shooting hobbyists and hunters, there is also an attraction to that small percentage of gun fetishists who make the movement seems crazy.
In my view support for the second amendment is not crazy and is vital as a check on potential government tyranny, but the ARA leadership and the small percentage of crazies do make the case seem weaker than it is.
Mike S.,
I think you’re over-analyzing. I see this all the time. Conservatives think all things liberal are bad, and liberals think all things conservative are bad. My father, a hard-core conservative, does the same thing. (just try to convince him otherwise.) Truth be told, most things on both sides are intended by the majority who support them to be good for the country.
I think the threat of losing the right to bear arms is just good old fashion marketing. The only plot is to increase sales and expand their customer base. If gun manufacturers know Republicans are going to support increased sales of their product, they’re going to support them.
-The beer lobby does the same thing. Do you think that’s an evil plot to get America drunk, and take advantage of the drunken Americans?
JW,
I shouldn’t be responding to this, but I’m really bugged about something, your poor comprehension and retention of what you’ve read.
Quote from one of MY earlier posts “You can use a weapon defensively… but that doesn’t mean they are something other then a weapon.”
Anyway, that’s my final word on the matter.
Gyges,
What is the primary function of a weapon?
Jim,
I think your thinking that I see evil plots everywhere, whereas paranoia is not my thing. I don’t think the ARA is part of an evil plot, I think they have allowed paranoid people to attain power and that they have been bought off by gun manufacturers. In the mix they lose site of the fact that believing in the Second Amendment and the Constitution is not the exclusive purview of the Republican Party.
By the same token while I believe America has always been run by an aristocracy, I don’t think their work is a conspiracy, rather it’s the sometimes similar aims of a group of people who hang out together and view their personal perks similarly. You know though that when it comes to the birther movement I do believe there is a conspiracy of sorts, but let’s leave that for another thread.
Mike S.,
The “party line” for Democrats, at least as I see it, has been that we have too many guns. That attitude hurts gun sales. -If you were in the gun business, who would you spend your money supporting?
–If you think I’m part of a conspiracy, you’re wrong. I don’t follow the beat of any drummer. If you want to see how long ago our country was taken from us…see Calder v. Bull. One should have asked the Supremes what part of “no” they don’t understand.
Jim,
I’m not ignoring you, the answer to your question is in an earlier comment of mine, and meant what I said about having said my last word on the subject. I just think I’ve spent more time then I should have in a stupid argument about semantics.
Gyges,
I wasn’t trying to provoke anything but thought.
After spending a good chunk of my life around the most powerful weapon ever known to mankind, I learned quite a bit about the deterrent effect of weapons.
We all talk about guns in terms of their active role, but seem to forget the greater effect of their passive role.
The best weapon is that which never needs to be used.
Jim,
As long as we refer to them as a weapon, not a deterrent I have no problem with it. I subscribe to Orwell’s theory that euphemisms are an enemy to intelligent discussion.
Gyges,
I’ll make sure to tell the U.S. Navy that I participated in weapon patrols rather than deterrent patrols. :>)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSBN_Deterrent_Patrol_insignia
Jim Byrne:
re. Calder v. Bull.
I did not read the entire opinion but it sounded like the SCOTUS was upholding the rights of an individual. It looked to me that the state of CT was trampling individual rights and the individual sought relief through the SCOTUS.
Our country was founded on the scantity of the individual and our government was set up to protect the individual. If one arm of government is digressing it is up to the others to nudge the one back on track.
I dont think this case is as significant as you think it is but then I am not a lawyer and would be interested in what the lawyers have to say about it.
IS,
Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the U.S. Constitution prevent the federal and state governments from creating ex post facto laws.
In Calder v. Bull, our Supremes decided that only applied to criminal laws. We had criminal and civil laws when the Constitution was adopted. If the Framers wanted to permit ex post facto civil laws, they would have said so.
If we have a need for civil ex post facto laws, the remedy is by amendment. Interpreting is one thing…ignoring is the other. -After all…it’s just a piece of paper.
As I said. What part of “no” don’t they understand.
JB:
I guess I should have read the entire opinion.
This is just f’n funny.
F’n handgun owners; no respect for people or weapons.
Michael: Every time he comes up, he’s got no knife, he’s got no jacket, he’s got no pants, he’s got no boots. All he’s got is that stupid gun he carries around like John Wayne.
Michael: Stanley, see this? This is this. This ain’t something else. This is this. From now on, you’re on your own.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077416/quotes
Gyges-
“I shouldn’t be responding to this, but I’m really bugged about something, your poor comprehension and retention of what you’ve read.”
Aw, that hurt my feelings.
“Quote from one of MY earlier posts ‘You can use a weapon defensively… but that doesn’t mean they are something other then a weapon.’”
You got me, either I missed that or I forgot it. And after a lot of thinking, you’ve pulled me to your side.
I think I have it straight:
A gun is a weapon and therefore can’t be used for safety. If you get hit in the head with a shovel, you don’t really have a skull fracture, because a shovel isn’t a weapon, it’s a tool for digging. Conversely, the people you see at the Olympics shooting at targets are not actually competitors engaged in a harmless sport, but are homicidal maniacs, as they are using weapons.
Also, correctional institutions don’t allow inmates to have steak knives because they don’t want unauthorized steak cutting.
jw,
Cut the semantic bullshi+, a gun is first and foremost a weapon and MUST BE RESPECTED AS SUCH.
This is why we have RULES OF THE RANGE; so idiots don’t blow holes in other people because of lack of respect for the gun.
I kind of hinted at the notion by posting this:
Michael: Every time he comes up, he’s got no knife, he’s got no jacket, he’s got no pants, he’s got no boots. All he’s got is that stupid gun he carries around like John Wayne.
Michael: Stanley, see this? This is this. This ain’t something else. This is this. From now on, you’re on your own.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077416/quotes
Bob-
And you can go ahead and cut the condescending BS, because I carry and I am a fanatic about safety. I know they are weapons first and never denied it. Gyges made the claim that a weapon can not be used for the sake of safety because it’s a weapon; he has essentially said that an object’s dictionary definition dictates its usage. No amount of examples, real or hypothetical, will shake him from that insane stance. A gun is always a weapon – but weapon is a morally neutral word, and a gun or any other weapon can be used for good. That this needs explaining or defending is astounding.
Well jw, if you’re a fanatic about safety then surely you agree that passing a law specifically aimed at allowing handguns in bars, i.e. where people get intoxicated and care less about safety, is asinine.
This is a few minutes of over the top, riotous, joyful, glorious ignorance concerning free guns, concealed carry, pansy Londoners, useful AK-47s and truck dealing in the good old USA (commies not welcome):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p003nvps
It occurrs at 42:43-46:15
You won’t be disappointed!